Great job in your responses to the detractors. I greatly admire and appreciate your studied challenges to what are now, frighteningly, widely held assumptions. Please continue the good work. Your skills are much better than mine, but the sentiment is the same!

I wholeheartedly appreciate your honest, fact filled replies to those who probably haven't ever had an original thought and are too lazy to do any research on a matter before they speak. Keep it up. We need people like you advocating the truth full of actual evidence.

With all due respect to your intelligence, the inconsistency of your response to Mr. Comber's letter surely hasn't escaped you. Right out of the gate, you stumble. Take the first couple of points:

COMB: Mr. Patterson’s worldview is obviously in line with naturalism, which excludes a priori any possibility of God, thus leaving evolution as the only viable option to him.>>

DARWrong. There could be a God and he/she/it could be part of nature...."a) Mountains of...b)The complete lack of even a competing theory...

Such a God as you describe (being "part of nature") doesn't fit the notion of God, but merely fits God into your box, which itself is by definition independant from a God as Creator of the universe! This is a straw man that you set up and then celebrate as you knock it down, saying "no one has ever come up with..." "Mountains of very conclusive evidence"? care to provide any? The so-called "complete lack of even a competing theory for evolution" is another blarring error as it establishes the point that your naturalistic definition of what constitutes a valid theory (purely natural) must be adhered to in order to even compete. Come now, at least remain intellectually honest in establishing the playing field. -------------------------

COM: Within a naturalistic paradigm, the universe has no cause or purpose, but is here by chance, yet the Big Bang theory implies a beginning to the universe - a conclusion that many naturalistic scientists would rather avoid.>>

DARa) Theistic assertions about supposed causes are mere assertion. It doesn't follow that because someone asserts there is a God and further, that they think they know it has a purpose, that there is indeed "a purpose."

b) It doesn't follow from either world view...

c) The Big bang only implies a beginning to the universe we observe now...

Again, this mumbo-jumbo about "supposed causes" being mere assertions" is mystifying. The deductive argument provided by Mr. Comber should be accepted or refuted on it's own merits - either the premises are correct or not. Provide something substantial in reply! The Big Bang (a purely naturalistic theory) says there was a beginning to the universe. The premises of the Kalam argument stand on their own - 1) anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Is there any exception to this that you can provide to prove it incorrect? 2) The universe BEGAN to exist. Do you not hold to the Big Bang theory? What better alternative can you provide? 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This naturally follows and must be accepted if the 2 premises are accepted as true. What is this cause? That's another discussion, but suffice it to say that the cause must itself be uncaused, eternal and not dependent upon the universe itself. That's the only logical answer!